Re: Was there REALLY neglect?

NoStone Mon 2 Jan - 9:45

Wintabells wrote:Great work Hideho.

And I hadn't even thought about the oddity of one of the children being bathed in someone else's apartment.

I am not so sure about bathing children in someone else's apartment as being odd. Yes if it was some onne bathinng other peoples kids but despite the fact each family had its own apartment i dont thinkk they would have regarded everything as being territorial but just facilities to be used.

Did they not all pile round to, was it Payne's apartment, each lunchtime for sandwiches forexample.

I can see someone being at somene else's apartment - the adults are having a cosy time over a glass of wine and someone saying ' I best go get this little one in the bath',

So as not to disturb the ambiance I can see folks making the offer 'why not pop them (the kid) in our bath - you can slip them in to their PJ's when you get back. So I think it could happen more out of laziness and convienience than anything more sinister or strange really.

**Panda** Mon 2 Jan - 9:55

Actually, the McCanns didn"t socialise with the rest of the group in the daytime. They didn"t have lunch at the Payne"s apartment, preferring to do their
own thing. There was one afternoon when some were at the Beach and Kate passed them while jogging. The meal at La Paraiso with the Tapas 7 and their
children did not include the McCanns either.

NoStone Mon 2 Jan - 10:12

Panda wrote:Actually, the McCanns didn"t socialise with the rest of the group in the daytime. They didn"t have lunch at the Payne"s apartment, preferring to do their
own thing. There was one afternoon when some were at the Beach and Kate passed them while jogging. The meal at La Paraiso with the Tapas 7 and their
children did not include the McCanns either.

Morning Panda!

I made the point about them eating at the Payne's was to demonstrate that they were all quite happy to share the facilities that were available to them and that the bathing thing could be an example of that plus hedonistic tendancies to take a short cut with the children - bathing them at other folks apartments - so the adults could stay 'into each other' a while longer!

Your point about the eating arrangements brings up other questions about whether Madeleine was around to take lunch on those days. If she was already dead the Mc's could hardly turn up without her could they?

It could also be that the Mc's isolated themselves from meal times with the other children for other reasons. I have friends whose child is autistic. When younger they would avoid communal meals with other children as the behaviour of their child was so embarrassing and generally led to all the kids fireing their food everywhere as it became a bun fight and a fun thing to do.

**Panda** Mon 2 Jan - 10:32

NoStone wrote:
Panda wrote:Actually, the McCanns didn"t socialise with the rest of the group in the daytime. They didn"t have lunch at the Payne"s apartment, preferring to do their
own thing. There was one afternoon when some were at the Beach and Kate passed them while jogging. The meal at La Paraiso with the Tapas 7 and their
children did not include the McCanns either.

Morning Panda!

I made the point about them eating at the Payne's was to demonstrate that they were all quite happy to share the facilities that were available to them and that the bathing thing could be an example of that plus hedonistic tendancies to take a short cut with the children - bathing them at other folks apartments - so the adults could stay 'into each other' a while longer!

Your point about the eating arrangements brings up other questions about whether Madeleine was around to take lunch on those days. If she was already dead the Mc's could hardly turn up without her could they?

It could also be that the Mc's isolated themselves from meal times with
the other children for other reasons. I have friends whose child is
autistic. When younger they would avoid communal meals with other
children as the behaviour of their child was so embarrassing and
generally led to all the kids fireing their food everywhere as it became
a bun fight and a fun thing to do.

Morning NoStone,

The Children"s Club actually closed for Lunch between 12 -2pm so the Mccanns had no alternative but to spend lunchtime with their children.!!! I thought
the photo of Madeleine sitting by the Pool with Gerry was taken the last day of the holiday. As I have mentioned here earlier, I do not subscribe to the
sharing of apartments etc and believe Amaral"s report is right, I think one of the Staff also confirmed that Madeleine and the twins had Tea at the OC
on the Thursday and were picked up at 5.30pm by their Parents.

Why would they create a timeline for all of them on the cover of a childs book before the Police arrived? Because they all knew they could be charged
with neglect.

mossman Mon 2 Jan - 11:52

it has always struck me as strange that the adults who were cited as being sick during the night were never missing from activities during the day. were there not two of the adults on two nights who missed dinner because of illness. there is however no mention of them being missing from activities during the day, either the day of the illness or the day following the night time illness. i have heard of 24 hour bugs but not 6 or 12 hour ones.

i also think what will prove to be significant when we find out the true story of what happened will be the wednesday night argument between gerry and kate, the night she slept in the spare bed in the childrens room. i think kate has always made way too much of this. i do not doubt they had an argument and wonder could it be because something had in fact happened to madeliene that wednesday. had she suffered a head injury at some stage during that day and hence the reason for kate spending that night in her room, to keep a check on her while she slept. so, they argued about whatever had happened earlier and kate left and stayed in maddies room for the night.

this being the case it could also account for madeliene being sleepy on thursday and having to be carried by kate. again, another fact that was constantly mentioned by kate.

**Panda** Mon 2 Jan - 12:07

I think what is very significant is that from the minute Madeleine was reported missing it was said by the McCanns that she was abducted. In my
dictionary ABDUCTED....to take by force, KIDNAPPED....to take for ransom. Even a £2 million reward offered by the NOTW failed to tempt a snitch and
this is why I beleive they know what happened to Madeleiene.

As for the Tapas7 statements there is not an intelligent answer to a question amongst them , these are all Professional people so I assume their replies
were deliberately vague so as not to incriminate themselves or the McCanns.

Freja53 Mon 2 Jan - 13:12

Whilst working as an expat abroad I lived with a family with two young girls, 5 & 3, on an ex-pat housing compound. One night the 5 year old was crying for over 1 and half hours and both her mother and I couldn't calm her at all. She probably had some sort of pain but we couldn't discover what it was. After about 45 minutes the next door neighbor, who had been woken by all the crying, came in (this was probably about midnight), to see what was wrong. So children can cry for long periods even when adults are there.

Autumn Mon 2 Jan - 15:26

Very interesting thread Hideho Was there REALLY neglect? - Page 2 944533

I too rejected the neglect story long ago and good to see this being challenged here. Picking up on an Mossman's comment yes it does seem strange that they seemed to make fast recoveries form the bugs and were well enough to take part in activities soon after.

**HiDeHo** Mon 2 Jan - 16:11

Another example that shows the person back at the apartments may have been looking after the children...

Jane Tanner at around the time of the 'abduction'...

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/ALL-TIMETABLES/Timetable-AFTER-10pm-Disappearance-With-phone-info-1-816776.html

"...just standing outside the, the door of the apartment mostly, I didn’t really move. trying to, you know, see what was happening. But, no, I was more or less at the bottom, as I say, at the bottom of the stairs, I’d come down”.

What stairs? The Paynes?

**HiDeHo** Mon 2 Jan - 16:31

Autumn wrote:Very interesting thread Hideho I too rejected the neglect story long ago and good to see this being challenged here. Picking up on an Mossman's comment yes it does seem strange that they seemed to make fast recoveries form the bugs and were well enough to take part in activities soon after.

I found a post I made about 4 years ago. (prior to the files being released) At that time most people believed they neglected their children, but I have always firmly believed they were 'normal' parents and it was only the damage control needed to create a credible 'abduction' that has produced the 'illusion' they were neglectful, irresponsible and illiterate

tin-lizzy (Original Message) Sent: 4/4/2008 5:04 PM
NIGHT OUT LEAVING CHILDREN ALONE

They have cleverly managed to 'live with' the accusations of 'neglect' and disgust about leaving the children alone that night....They even added to the 'disgust' by acknowledging that they left the door unlocked....

The world is 'up in arms' about how they could leave their little ones THAT NIGHT (causing Maddies abduction)

Subliminally they have cleverly implanted into everyones mind that they are disgusting irresponsible parents...They went for a night 'out' and if nothing else, they are responsible for 'neglect' that night...

How dare they leave little ones while they go eating and drinking...

If we believe the dogs finding the cadaver scent then we know that Maddie was dead long before they 'went out leaving their little ones alone in an unlocked apartment'

The 'night out' was little more than an HOUR...with a good portion of that minus Gerry and some others....

For a little over an hour they were playing out the 'plan' to make it appear to be an abduction...

They happily live with the 'outrage' of neglect that the world accuses them of...

That has the subliminal effect of an overall belief of them being irresponsible parents that night....and there was an abduction...

They are happy to see everyone trying to figure out the 'timeline' for that night...

Who checked at what time...who saw Maddie...Who didn't...its all very involved and confusing...

So confusing...that its often forgotten that Maddie was already dead according to the dogs finding the corpse scent...

The timeline of 'checks' keeps everyone on the 'neglect' issue and away from what was really happening...

The 'abduction plan'...

IMO...To believe in Eddie and Keelas findings, means that Maddie wasn't in her bed that night.

Any discussion of a timeline of 'checks' for that HOUR shows they have managed to subliminally keep everyone believing in the 'abduction'.

If Maddie was already dead (according to the dogs) the HOUR on May 3rd was not about checking the kids...

They have 'successfully' (so far) managed to redirect everyone away from what was really happening...

IMO

Here is an interesting comment from Textusa

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/11/all-paths-lead-to-rome.html

Negligence is the most recurrent theme of this never ending story. We keep bumping into it in almost every its chapter. So much so, that when the McCann name is pronounced, the word “negligent” just simply pops up.

They say that a lie repeated a million times becomes inevitably the truth. History teaches us that. It also teaches us that those lies that don’t quite make it to the “truth” become either legends or urban myths. Time has provided them the necessary cloaking to be impossible for them be proven wrong or right, or even if the events told even happened at all.

And that was on what the McCanns betted on. That if you discussed hard enough how negligent they were, the abduction would always REMAIN lurking in the background. And as long as it stayed there, then it became a reality; it’s a possibility, however absurd. From there to "myth" it's just that small step of becoming an "unsolved mistery"...

So they rammed, time and time again, down our throats, that they were the most negligent people ever conceived by mankind.

jinvta Mon 2 Jan - 17:11

Plus there was that investigator Moura who concluded that Jane Tanner was never at the dinner table on Thursday night. I don't even think that they neglected their kids on the Thursday night to make the story fit. Tanner was likely in the Payne's apartment all evening and when Evie got sick she called Russell to the apartment.

Tanner was spotted by Jez outside 5A at about 8:30 pm in her big purple jumper, however, nobody ever noticed her leaving or returning to the apartment for a check, nor did Gerry or Jez notice her walk right by them. Further, Kate did not even bother asking Tanner if she had seen Madeleine upon noticing her missing, knowing full well that Tanner had supposedly returned to her apartment for the evening.

There are also huge discrepancies in where all of the tapas lot say they were sitting that evening, mainly to do with Jane Tanner. Jane places herself between Kate and Rachel, but Kate places herself between Fiona and Rachel with Jane across the table. Anyone would at least know that two people they were sitting directly next to at the table if they had in fact been at the table!

**HiDeHo** Mon 2 Jan - 17:41

I agree jinvta.

I recall at the very beginning when timelines were being crudely put together (but similar to the resulting timelines) there was an issue of Jane not being at the tapas.

I can't recall why that was suggested considering her bundleman sighting, but it does stand out in my memory for some reason. I'll see if I can find one of the early timelines that were put together.

I have just found one from 3A's Jan 2008 and as can be seen there wasn't a mention of JT ARRIVING...

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Timeline-Info/Timelines-from-3A-thread-1-809803.html

Provided by KazLux
6 p.m. The McCanns pick their children up at the Ocean Club’s creche.
7.30 Madeleine and the twins go to bed.
8.30 Gerry and Kate arrive at the Tapas restaurant.
8.45 Russell, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield go to the restaurant.
8.55 David and Fiona Payne also arrive at the Tapas (Did Dianne Webster arrive with them?) . According to David, all the elements of the group were already there. But Rachel assures that Matthew arrived two or three minutes after the Paynes.
9.00 Matthew went to check on the children.
9.05 Gerry left the Tapas to check on his children. around 9.05 p.m. When he entered the apartment the children were fine, he just noticed that the door to their bedroom was partially open. He looked at the window, which was closed, just as the shutter.
9.10/15-ish Jane Tanner (either was on her way to the tapas bar or went to check on her children and) notices a man walking hastily, carrying a child. She memorizes the suspect, but fails to recognize Maddie.

Sponsored content